80 replies to this topic

[Daniel Mounsey]

The thing about the Pocket Atlas I really disliked was the fact that it missed so many incredible objects visible in small telescopes. Huge oversight in my opinion. 

[Tony Flanders]

The thing about the Pocket Atlas I really disliked was the fact that it missed so many incredible objects visible in small telescopes. Huge oversight in my opinion. 

Could you give some examples?

 

Obviously the Pocket Sky Atlas shows a limited number of objects, due to the limited amount of real estate available. The same can be said for any paper atlas, in fact. But that's a matter of choice, not a matter of oversight.

 

Reasonably enough, Roger Sinnott selected objects that have well-defined and well-known magnitudes according to a magnitude cut-off -- and then hand-added a few objects that fail to meet that cutoff, such as the remaining Herschel 400.

 

With bright nebulae, which generally don't have well-known magnitudes, there was much more choice involved. And even more with respect to dark nebulae, which don't have any magnitude at all.

 

I'm sure that if I looked in detail I could find a case of an object that I would have chosen but Roger didn't. But that's inevitable; different people have different tastes. On the whole, I think the Pocket Sky Altas arguably makes better use of its (necessarily very limited) real estate better than any other atlas in print.

 

The number of objects visible through a 100-mm refractor under dark skies far exceeds what could possibly be shown in the Pocket Sky Atlas -- or in Sky Atlas 2000.0, for that matter.

[WillR]

Right. As far as I'm concerned, electronics work much better when you want to zoom in, because no paper atlas can possibly contain as much detail as you can store in a microchip. But paper is much better for the big view; even a computer screen is way too small, and a hand-held device is pathetic

 

Perhaps more to the point, when you zoom way out, the amount of detail is sufficiently modest to allow hand-editing by a skilled cartographer who can bring out both the forest and the trees at the same time. With an electronic aid you never really achieve the right balance.

Up until recently, I used paper charts exclusively for my navigating at the eyepiece, with occasional exceptions for a comet or Neptune or Uranus. But lately I've been hunting down dimmer carbon variable stars, and Sky Safari is invaluable for identifying the exact FOV and the magnitudes. I was amazed at how useful it was for this.

[WillR]

The thing about the Pocket Atlas I really disliked was the fact that it missed so many incredible objects visible in small telescopes. Huge oversight in my opinion. 

Hmm, I've found a few that aren't in there, but "so many incredible"? I'm not sure what you mean by incredible.

 

My nits with the PSA are estimating distances across the center coil, finding the right chart near the pole ( Draco, for example, broken up into many charts), and the fact that they fall apart after limited use. Maybe I am hard on them but my second regular size lost its cover and is taped together and my jumbo has quite a few pages with half their holes ripped. And the regular one is my second in 3 years.

 

I guess this is an endorsement of their usefulness, if not their durability.

[moefuzz]

Like many, I have a lot of different atlases and charts but my first (back in '79) was

Antonín Bečvář's Atlas of the Heavens along with the complimentary Atlas Coeli Skalnaté Pleso 1950.0   set of 16 celestial charts.

 

At one time I had the charts pinned to my wall but I think they got 'eclipsed' via cutting up an official 'Pink Floyd The Wall' picture book. Which is fair as the wall in particular was for my Studio sound room thru the early mid 80's.

 

Still have both the book and charts.

 

I wonder how many others have this set?

Edited by moefuzz, 08 April 2024 - 06:12 PM.

[BrentKnight]

Like many, I have a lot of different atlases and charts but my first (back in '79) was

Antonín Bečvář's Atlas of the Heavens along with the complimentary Atlas Coeli Skalnaté Pleso 1950.0   set of 16 celestial charts.

 

At one time I had the charts pinned to my wall but I think they got 'eclipsed' via cutting up an official 'Pink Floyd The Wall' picture book. Which is fair as the wall in particular was for my Studio sound room thru the early mid 80's.

 

Still have both the book and charts.

 

I wonder how many others have this set?

I got this one a couple years ago because of the classic colors it used and that it seems to highlight dark nebulae pretty well.  I have noticed that it plots quite a few objects but does not label everything - encourages additional detective work...

[Tony Flanders]

I got (Skalnaté Pleso) a couple years ago because of the classic colors it used and that it seems to highlight dark nebulae pretty well.

Sky & Telescope mimicked (some might say plagiarized) the Skalnaté Pleso color scheme for its own star charts, notably in the second edition of Sky Atlas 2000.0 and the Pocket Sky Atlas.

[PJ Anway]

As far as paper atlases, I use:

Deep Atlas 600

Herald Bobroff

Nortons

Pocket Sky Atlas

Rukl's Atlas of the Moon

Cambridge Double Star Atlas

 

Appreciate them all for different reasons.

However, these paper versions stay in my home office. I no longer use them at the scope but have digitized them all for that purpose.

Works fine for me.

Edited by PJ Anway, 09 April 2024 - 06:30 AM.

[jcj380]

I no longer use them at the scope but have digitized them all for that purpose.

Did you scan them in as PDFs or ???

I have SkySafari on my phone and tablet, but CDSA might be nice to have available as well.

[PJ Anway]

Did you scan them in as PDFs or ???

I have SkySafari on my phone and tablet, but CDSA might be nice to have available as well.

Yes, I scan them and then save as pdfs. I also embed links in the constellation index to link each constellation to the appropriate page and then a link back to the index; to make navigation a bit easier.

[Mike Swan]

Following Brent’s appeal for information on dark nebulae, I thought I might post something about Becvar’s "Atlas of the Heavens". My 1962 version shows plenty of dark nebulae, but no annotations for them. He used Barnard’s "Photographic Atlas of Selected Regions of the Milky Way” (1927), and - for the northern section - Ross and Calverts’ “Atlas of the Northern Milky Way” (1934). This latter work is a photographic atlas, but as I don’t have, and have never seen a copy, I’m not sure if it has any drawings plotting the positions and extents of dark nebulae. Most of the areas of dark nebulae plotted are very transparent and would hardly be noticeable.

 

I have attached a pdf of part of a chart from Becvar’s atlas (an enlarged area on the Camelopardalis/Perseus/Auriga borders), and compared it with a similar section from one of my charts. Bear in mind that the projections are different, and the epochs are 1950 and 2000. The galactic equator runs along the bottom of my chart, and curves across (dash/dot line) Becvars’.

 

The dark nebulae either side of 1, 2 and 3 Cam do agree to a certain extent with my chart. I have only plotted the denser portions of the nebulae, using the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS) to plot them accurately. If I were to plot the least opaque it would look a right mess. Each portion of a dark nebula is annotated with Barnard (B) given priority. Lynd’s dark nebulae (LDN 1962) next, and finally Dobashi’s dark nebulae (Dob 2011) last.

 

You may have noticed that Barnard 9 is missing. According to Barnard it is a dark nebula 2.5 degrees long and 0.5 degree wide that fits with the positions of LDN 1392/3 to B 13, and encompasses B 8 and B 11. This is the reason its not annotated.

 

There aren’t many dark nebulae associated with the large sinuous one to the left on Becvars’ chart, just B 20, Dob 4093 and Dob 4089, and off the chart B 15.

Attached Files

•  Dark Nebulae.pdf   445.46KB   52 downloads

[BrentKnight]

Becvar often does not match what current CMOS cameras see when it comes to the plotted DNe's.  This makes sense now that you mention that he used Barnard's atlas for the outlines.  Barnard's photographic process was barely sensitive to red and so the dark stuff that he saw looks quite different in some places.  Try to locate the regions around the Elephant Trunk (IC 1396) on Barnard's charts...

[MartinMeredith]

This is an interesting discussion, and kudos to Mike for drawing these outlines. I decided against drawing outlines for all 5004 dark nebulae plotted in my charts (actually, I think for many it is an ill-posed problem).

 

My alternative approach was to plot a representation of stellar density, so that dark nebulae show up as the holes. I wasn't entirely happy with it -- I used PPMXL stars down to mag 20, but I'm pretty sure it can be refined now that GAIA is available. Here's an example for the B12 region you provided above, which I think is in broad (if fuzzy) agreement with your outlines. (It loses something in jpg compression relative to the pdf original.)

 

 

cheers

 

Martin

[BoldAxis1967]

PSA.   Original and Jumbo. Very easy to read. 

 

If I traveled to blue and grey/black zones more often I would probably use Interstellarium DSA.

 

L.

[HellsKitchen]

In the field it's the Millenium Star Atlas for me. The limiting magnitude and large scale makes star hopping a breeze. The finder charts are simple and easy to read too. I've used Interstellarum in the field aswell, but found myself getting somewhat disoriented due to the relative lack of stars and smaller scale. If only the MSA had Interstellarum's DSO count, it would be perfect. 

[BrentKnight]

Difficult to recommend the MSA as it contains quite a bit of Unobtainium...

[dawnpatrol]

Like a lot of those who have posted in this thread, I have several paper atlases. Having spent 25+ years of my professional career in publishing, I have a multi-faceted appreciation for putting concepts on paper and doing it well. So for me it goes beyond just the content, I appreciate being able to use an atlas that's on heavy, high-quality paper with shading and typography that has been created with a real appreciation for the end user and the environment in which it will be used. 

 

Sky Atlas 2K is my paper atlas of choice because it's well laid out, designed and printed and it's simply a pleasure to use. I have a few versions (and I'm always hunting for more). Also, and I know it might sound silly, but I truly enjoy using a large format atlas. There's something about opening to a chart and leaning over a wide, flat sheet and taking a moment to orient myself, turning my head slightly left and right to take in the whole field. Maybe that's also why I love using 100-degree eyepieces.      

[moefuzz]

Like a lot of those who have posted in this thread, I have several paper atlases. Having spent 25+ years of my professional career in publishing, I have a multi-faceted appreciation for putting concepts on paper and doing it well. So for me it goes beyond just the content, I appreciate being able to use an atlas that's on heavy, high-quality paper with shading and typography that has been created with a real appreciation for the end user and the environment in which it will be used. 

 

Sky Atlas 2K is my paper atlas of choice because it's well laid out, designed and printed and it's simply a pleasure to use. I have a few versions (and I'm always hunting for more). Also, and I know it might sound silly, but I truly enjoy using a large format atlas. There's something about opening to a chart and leaning over a wide, flat sheet and taking a moment to orient myself, turning my head slightly left and right to take in the whole field. Maybe that's also why I love using 100-degree eyepieces.      

 

Sky Atlas 2000.0 is available for download as either a pdf or in large jpg2 picture format..
 

https://archive.org/...ge/n13/mode/2up

Edited by moefuzz, 12 May 2024 - 02:45 PM.

[HellsKitchen]

Difficult to recommend the MSA as it contains quite a bit of Unobtainium...

 

I'd like to try Uranometria 2000.0 all sky edition for its DSO count, sometimes the lack of DSOs in MSA is frustrating.  But ofcourse, I'll sooner strike oil in my backyard than find a copy...

Edited by HellsKitchen, 13 May 2024 - 04:12 PM.

[astroclint]

Just got this from amazon.

The cambridge star atlas fourth edition.

[skyops]

Just got this from amazon.

The cambridge star atlas fourth edition.

*

 

How funny.

 

You and I received the same item, from the same source, at the same time.

 

 

 

 

.

[Dave Mitsky]

*

 

I like printed atlases, and own* and have used all these to a greater-or-lesser extent over time:

 

- BSA

 

- Norton's 

 

- Cambridge

 

- PSA (both)

 

- SA2K 

 

- Uranometria

 

- Interstellarum

 

- MSA

 

- Harold-Bobroff

 

- GAOTS (even had a custom wooden box made for this one)

 

 

IMGP4583.JPG

 

 

Most used: SA2K

 

 

I would say that I dislike the H-B more than any other due to their object symbols. The charts become a chaotic mess at some magnitudes.

 

 

 

*recently gave away my BSA to a new observer.

 

 

 

 

.

I own all of the above with the exception of Interstellarum, MSA, and GAOTS, plus a few more, including Antonin Rukl's Atlas of the Moon.  For casual binocular and telescope observing, I primarily use the BSA, the two PSAs, and the SA2K.  

[Daniel Mounsey]

I own all of the above with the exception of Interstellarum, MSA, and GAOTS, plus a few more, including Antonin Rukl's Atlas of the Moon.  For casual binocular and telescope observing, I primarily use the BSA, the two PSAs, and the SA2K.  

LOVE the Rukl's Atlas of the Moon. Dave it's good to respond to you. It's been a while. How do you have a 116,000 posts and I never see you. Have you been hiding in one forum or something or am I missing something? 

[pugliano]

I'd like to try Uranometria 2000.0 all sky edition for its DSO count, sometimes the lack of DSOs in MSA is frustrating.  But ofcourse, I'll sooner strike oil in my backyard than find a copy...

Like new.

 

https://www.alibris....tid=5Nv03vHgBCI

Edited by pugliano, 14 May 2024 - 11:33 PM.

[HellsKitchen]

Like new.

 

https://www.alibris....tid=5Nv03vHgBCI

 

 

$621 lol

 

Some of these Astronomy publications are fast becoming lucrative investments.